Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s concerns relating to water runoff from her neighbour’s garden into her garden. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s response to her concerns relating to water runoff from her neighbour’s garden into her garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X contacted the Council with concerns about water runoff from her neighbour’s garden into hers. She asked it a number of questions and made a subject access request (SAR) to see the information the Council held.
7. Ms X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and its conclusion that, having undertaken a site visit to her neighbour’s property to carry out a visual inspection of the gardens, rainwater from her neighbour’s would filter down through the subsoil, under the boundary wall and into Ms X’s property. It told Ms X the landscaping measures within her neighbour’s property were reasonable, that there was no evidence the measures were resulting in the diversion of water to her property and that no enforcement action could be taken.
8. While Ms X may not be satisfied with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council has confirmed its position to Ms X and decided it has no grounds to take enforcement action. We cannot review the merits of the professional view taken by officers.
9. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her SAR, it is open to her to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the body best placed to deal with it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman